Armstrong, Douglas Tyrone, WR-78,106-01

Background

Armstrong was convicted of capital murder (April 2006) and sentenced to death; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed multiple post-conviction habeas applications; this order addresses his initial application filed Feb 19, 2009.
Allegation: trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation and to present expert and lay mitigation at punishment.
Post-conviction evidence (affidavits and expert reports) alleges severe childhood abuse, poverty, head injuries, learning deficits, substance dependence, and mental disorders; many corroborating witnesses live out of state.
Trial mitigation was limited (sister, pastor, girlfriend); defense investigators and co-counsel testified they lacked time and did not obtain key records or evaluations.
The trial court found the additional evidence largely cumulative; this Court remanded for specific factual findings on witness credibility and availability and expert report credence to resolve prejudice under Strickland.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s mitigation investigation was constitutionally deficient	Armstrong: counsel failed to investigate family history, out-of-state records, neuro/psychiatric testing, and to locate witnesses	State: existing mitigation (sister’s testimony, pastor, girlfriend) plus evidence of counseling undermines need for more	Court: counsel’s investigation was deficient (mitigation team admitted failures); remand for factfinding
Whether Armstrong was prejudiced by deficient performance	Armstrong: post-conviction affidavits and expert reports would have provided additional, non-cumulative mitigating evidence that could alter sentencing outcome	State: post-conviction evidence is largely cumulative of trial testimony and may not have been available to testify	Court: record insufficient to resolve prejudice; remand for trial court to assess credibility and availability of witnesses and weight of expert reports
Admissibility/weight of post-conviction affidavits and expert reports	Armstrong: affidavits and experts should be considered in assessing prejudice	State: stipulated admissibility does not equal credibility; trial court found them largely cumulative	Court: ordered live findings — trial court must evaluate credibility and availability before final decision
Whether depositions or continuance could or should have been pursued	Armstrong: defense could have obtained out-of-state testimony via depositions or sought continuance	State: argued mitigation allowed at trial; availability uncertain	Court: noted depositions were available under Texas law and remanded to determine whether witnesses would have been available or deposed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (reasonableness of mitigation investigation judged by professional norms)
Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Strickland standards in Texas post-conviction review)
Ex parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (consider totality of trial and habeas evidence on prejudice)
Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate review of trial court’s legal conclusions de novo)
Ex parte Ramirez, 280 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (availability statements in affidavits affect prejudice analysis)
Frangias v. State, 450 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (use of depositions to secure out-of-state mitigation witnesses)